This has got to be the only industry where the products you use and your religion are one in the same.

For which you can blame on two things, IMO.

1. Computer and OS vendors have historically kept all their eggs in different baskets - thus choosing another hardware vendor meant choosing another OS, other software and perhaps even different peripherals. In fact DEC used to support more than one proprietary OS on one architecture - the PDP-11 - and no more than two PDP architectures were ever compatible with each other (e.g. PDP-6 and -10). By contrast, even though people argue about cars, choosing Ford over Toyota this time round has never meant ditching your Toyota-shaped bottom for a Ford-shaped one. Even when DOS and Windows PC's came along, you still couldn't buy more than one or two architectures (depending on how you count) to run them on - at first by design, and then by default.

2. AT&T are the only people who (grudgingly or accidentally) created an open platform - which, until the advert of Linux, STILL got proprietarized. IBM, of course, accidentally did it in hardware too.

The only reason that Linux (even more, Linux or BSD) is the only game in town for many people who run FOSS is that it's the only mature/maturing technology based on a sort-of-open one. To the casual user, even certain aspects of BeOS/Zeta/Haiku look more "Unixy" than (say) "Windowsy" or original(-y?!).

The whole idea of being unbiased is a load of bull crap. The only people who are unbiased are the blissfully ignorant. Try finding an engineer who thinks that all designs are equally valid! Competent people have opinions, and are thus biased. A good reporter isn't unbiased, but simply honest and open-minded about his opinions.

"Unbiased" reporting is the drivel you see on CNN, where the anchor spouts off about a topic with which he's unfamiliar, unbiasedly regurgitating whatever he's fed from his teleprompter. Of course he's unbiased, because he doesn't know enough about the subject to have formed an opinion! It's the crap you see where every viewpoint is presented as equally valid, despite the fact that some things are clearly better than other things.

There's a difference in calling a website "unbiased" and a person "unbiased". As a person, nobody is unbiased. Neither am I.

I can, however, say that I do not select stories on OSNews based on my personal opinions about the content of the article. It's not a factor involved in the process. I decide whether it fits our scope, whether the English is of acceptable levels, more of that stuff. For rare type of articles (i.e. a review of SkyOS) these criteria are more loosely applied than for i.e. another SUSE review.

A good reporter isn't unbiased, but simply honest and open-minded about his opinions.

Yes, but only if he constraints his opinions into separate, clearly marked as such stories. You will not see me take a stab at project Xyz in its release announcement on OSNews (save for the few feeble attempts at humour); however, I might write a review of Xyz two days later in which my opinion is clearly visible.

It is this separation that leads to me saying that OSNews is unbiased. My own personal opinions on things are not reflected in OSNews' overall content, and hence OSNews is unbiased.